Talk:Antisemitism in Europe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tagged[edit]

This article was tagged by Bozmo. Bozmo: "article appears to be arbitrary artificial subdivision of notable subject: cf murder of people over six ft tall etc". I don't think there is any doubt that anti-semitism is a notable subject and the geographical subdivision is perfectly sensible. I therefore removed the tag.S711 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is more poorly written and grammatically labored than any I've read on Wikipedia. It reminds me of a high school report.70.105.226.170 (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Iudaism bez prikras 63-7.gif[edit]

The image Image:Iudaism bez prikras 63-7.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to prosecute war criminals.[edit]

What's failing to prosecute war criminals got to do with anti-semitism? Australia hasn't prosecuted any war criminals either, yet they are not listed here. --Martintg (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Barbarians" was not a muslim gang[edit]

The gang that kidnapped and tortured Ilan Halimi cannot be described as muslim,fore the three following reasons: 1-More than 50% per cent of the gang was not of muslim confession. 2-Moreover,many members of the gang might have a muslim sounding name but might not necessarly be muslim(I mean there must some atheist mexican named jesus). 3-The agressions were not made in the name of religion or any political cause.Indeed,the victim was abducted in order to ask for a ransom. 4-The gang did not have a religious characterization.

All those point are backed up here:http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Ilan_Halimi;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Halimi However,this was without any doubt an antisemitic act since the victim was target because of the belief that people of jewish confession are wealthier than the rest.

I recommend changing "Muslim gang" to "gang".


Ishar667 (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citecheck[edit]

Often when I encounter a page I pick some random sources to try to verify what they are used for. One example here where the source does not support what is written is this for "There have, however, been a number of antisemitic incidents in recent years, and after Germany and Austria, Sweden has the highest rate of antisemitic incidents in Europe. Though the Netherlands reports a higher rate of antisemitism in some years" or "Much of the new European antisemitic violence can actually be seen as a spill over from the long running Arab-Israeli conflict since the majority of the perpetrators are from the large immigrant Arab communities in European cities. However, compared to France, the United Kingdom and much of the rest of Europe, in Germany, Austria, and Sweden Arab and pro-Palestinian groups are involved in only a small percentage of antisemitic incidents. Indigenous Germans, Austrians, and Swedes are more likely to commit violent antisemitic acts, attack Jews verbally or vandalize Jewish property." For the latter qoute, this is a supporting source but is to unspecific to verify that Austria and Sweden have similar problems as in Germany. Judging from this sample, a more general fact check is warranted. Steinberger (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive1/estonia/index.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grim[edit]

The language in this article is not going to win us any prizes. Even from the opening sentence "Antisemitism... has experienced a long history of expression" won't get you a pass mark in "Common Entrance" English. When did AS become animate and stalk the earth, so that it might "experience" things? And the following single sentence is bad enough to get us famous "The Renaissance, Enlightenment and imperialist eras led to a series of increasingly non-religious expressions of anti-Semitic phobias and outrages in the continent, even as much of the continent had experienced significant political reformations; by the time that a number of republican and other non-monarchial systems were established, romantic ethnic nationalism and labor movements had begun to provide a main conduit and motivator for expressions of anti-Semitic incidents and violence." It is just nonsense, it is not possible to produce this kind of things if you think about the meaning of any of the words in the sentence. What is an expression of an incident etc etc etc? --BozMo talk 14:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has now been tagged as needing improvement. It is very difficult to summarise about 1500 years of this topic given the varied histories of countries where Jews have settled and the social and political changes which have taken place in them but what we have now is not well written.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My revisions to the article[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_Europe&diff=529666281&oldid=529656911

Agree? Disagree? Either way, explain why please.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should use http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~ikalmar/illustex/orijed.intro.htm as a source; it makes clear that it "is for the sole use of Ivan Kalmar’s students. There is no warranty that its text corresponds exactly to the published version. If you wish to quote or refer to any of this “Introduction” in a publication of your own then you must refer to the published version alone." Jayjg (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My recent reversion[edit]

Of this material. My problems with this material are (a) that it ultimately refers to specific antisemitic incidents which, using the same sources, should be placed in the by country sections and (b) that it synthesizes opinions from those reports of specific incidents into a more general statement about 21st century European antisemitism. I think the best thing to do is keep the sources, rewrite the stuff sourced to them, place it in appropriate by country sections, and drop the synthesis. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

first of all, you could talk first and not erase the work of other people. second- your comment that my edit about eastern europe is too specific is not very clear- i didn't made up a list of all known antisemitic cases in the past 20 years, i did described a wide fenomenon using examples, how else would you describe this?! antisemitism in europe is a broad subject and this article, in my opinion, is ment to describe the origins of antisemitism with major examples. by making it sections you're missing the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyNolan (talk • contribs) 22:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BRD. You make an edit, I revert it and give reasons, then we discuss. I understand what you're trying to do, but you're synthesizing (see WP:SYNTHESIS) a broader point about antisemitism in Europe by taking a bunch of specific examples from different countries. Why don't you use your same sources to add material to the by-country sections in this same article? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your English isn't so good and dropping 2K of material that needs to be completely rewritten just for spelling and grammar is kind of inconsiderate. Maybe you could make a section for each paragraph on the talk page here so we could discuss it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


What you are talking about it's not how research should be. Suppose you want to describe a phenomenon that has a lot of examples with similar characteristics (of course that good research will compare the cases in order to show the similarity and the differences). here, I would like to explain the logic of my intention to rebuild the whole article of "antisemitism in Europe"- when we talk about antisemitism we can identify similar characteristics in some eras and in some regions, for example- blood libels is a phenomenon that started in the middle ages and in most cases it is the same accusation (Jews killed a Christian child) therefore it's logical to describe the whole idea with major examples (as I did in the article and this issue you didn't erase).

There is also differences between anti-Semitism in different parts of Europe- eastern Europe is different in how antisemitism is expressed than western Europe, again, in each part and in every era we can identify similar characteristics and I gave few major cases (of extreme violence) as an example.

A list of anti-Semitic acts by county won't make the article worth reading, in my opinion, because you can just add the section about every country to the country's "jewish history" so why to make a different article made out of a long list of cases. Please notice that my whole work on this article is according to the logic I just explained, you erased just the part of east Europe in the 21th century and therefore I don't understand what is the difference between this part from any other parts that I've been working about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyNolan (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV-section[edit]

I have added a POV-tag to the section about the situation in Malmö. This belongs to Antisemitism in Sweden and just copying it from there to any article about the same topic is not right. Summarize the content instead. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very important, especially as of late, to separate anti-Semitist sentiment from anti-Zionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanderVK (talk • contribs) 12:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very biased and one-sided article[edit]

This article makes it seem that the root-cause of European anti-semitism is abstract things like "blood libel" and "religious reasons" which, deliberate or not, make it sound like the people who express hostility toward jews are conspiracy theorists. This is inaccurate as pretty much every far right group across Europe is open about their reasons for disliking jews and almost all the reasons are uniform: jews very high representation in feminism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_feminists), promotion of cultural marxism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory), promotion of multiculturalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Lerner_Spectre), and their use of subversion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals) to achieve their end goals. Furthermore, their control of the media, banking, and high representation in university administration is of concern to these groups. These are legitimate concerns that are not being addressed, but rather are being glossed over with red herrings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hompo2015 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Antisemitism in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Antisemitism in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Antisemitism in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antisemitism in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Again?[edit]

You know WELL that Muslims in Europe have hatred towards Zionism, how come you call that the "new anti-Semitism"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.255.196.54 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to "new antisemitism" in the lede[edit]

I've replaced the previous reference to "new antisemitism" in the lede section of this article with new wording, mostly taken from the articles on New antisemitism and anti-Zionism. The new wording is intended as a summary (hence the absence of sources), in keeping with the remainder of the lede. I would welcome constructive additions to this text.

One particular concern that I have with the previous wording is the reference to "a growing Muslim population within European nations" as a factor in the emergence of "new antisemitism" and/or rising rates of anti-Semitism generally. I don't believe it would be appropriate for this article claim as factual that "a growing Muslim population" (as opposed to, say, currents within Islamism or radicalization) is a direct cause of increased anti-Semitism, even if Taguieff makes such an assertion. CJCurrie (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to this post, I would simply note that the concept of "new antisemitism" is quite well known and does not require a citation in the lede. That said, I won't object if someone wants to link to an article describing the concept. CJCurrie (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal for Antisemitism in 21st-century France[edit]

I haven't read the Antisemitism in Europe#21st-century France section or the Antisemitism in 21st-century France article in detail yet and don't have time now, but in the process of doing something else found these two overlapping topics in different places. This makes no sense - the information is different and either overlapping, conflicting or out of date in one source or the other, unless a lot of work is continuously done on both to keep them in sync. I propose that the article become the main source of information and whatever is worth including from the section in this one is copied over. The lead from this article can then be transcluded in the section here to keep some basic info and to keep both in sync at all times. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal for Antisemitism in 21st-century Germany[edit]

Ditto: I haven't read the Antisemitism in Europe#21st century Germany section or the Antisemitism in 21st century Germany article in detail yet and don't have time now, but (as with France, see above) in the process of doing something else found these two overlapping topics in different places. This makes no sense - the information is different and either overlapping, conflicting or out of date in one source or the other, unless a lot of work is continuously done on both to keep them in sync. I propose that the article become the main source of information and whatever is worth including from the section in this one is copied over. The lead from this article can then be transcluded in the section here to keep some basic info and to keep both in sync at all times. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cart before the horse?[edit]

User:Jontel, it was antisemitism in Europe (including Germany) that led to things like the Nazi racial policies, and the various other antisemitic actions taken by various fascist European countries against Jews in the 20th century. I'm not sure why you want to reverse that relationship, or imply that it was all caused by Germany.[1][2] Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jayjg The lede says: 'In the 20th century, antisemitism during the reign of fascist regimes such as Nazi Germany resulted in the death and dislocation of the majority of Europe's Jewish population.'

1. The Nazis believed in racial purity and superiority and there is a huge amount of evidence on this. Such views were not unique to the Nazis. This, of course, greatly affected Jews, who were the largest racial minority in most European countries. However, it also affected the Romany, disabled and, above all, Slavs. Vastly more Slavs died in World War II than did Jews, largely because of the Nazis views of them as subhuman. By omitting this background, you are implying that the Nazi were motivated by antisemitism alone. This is misrepresenting history.
2. Who are these other fascist regimes that exterminated Jews? Italy, Hungary and Vichy France may have cooperated but they had limited choice and there is little evidence that they adopted such murderous policies independently. By refusing to allocate responsibility to the Nazis, you are misrepresenting history.
3. I agree that antisemitism was prevalent before the Nazis and across most of Europe and that is an important point. However, the lead only talks about the Holocaust. It would be better if the lead mentioned this wider and longer antisemitic attitudes and relatively milder discrimination while clearly situating responsibility for the Holocaust with the Nazis. Jontel (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jontel:
  1. The Nazis killed Jews because of their antisemitism; their anti-Jewish racial policies were a symptom of their antisemitism, not a result. Had they been philosemitic, they would have invented racial "science" proving Jews were a "superior race".
  2. I agree that Germany was the prime driver of the murderous policies, but they were not the only perpetrator, nor the only antisemitic government. To be fair, non-fascist governments in pre-World War II Europe also promulgated antisemitic policies (e.g. ghetto benches).
  3. I don't see why both cannot be mentioned.
Jayjg (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the text in the lede to accommodate your concerns. Antisemitism in Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania in the early 20th century also led to the deaths of thousands and the "dislocation" (mostly via emigration) of hundreds of thousands of Jews. Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making the change - it is a big improvement. However, I think it would be clearer to separate the pogroms, appalling though they were, from the Holocaust, which was on an entirely different scale and nature. I can see the point of communicating that antisemitism was a common element and that can be done, too. Jontel (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would you propose? Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Kill the Jews" is antisemitic[edit]

User:Jontel, when crowds are rioting and shouting "Kill the Jews", when youths are told to "hunt for Jews" with one group severely beating up a shop owner accused of being a Jew, and when "Norwegian author and editor Eirik Eiglad, himself a socialist who was present in Oslo during the riots" writes a book called The Anti-Jewish Riots in Oslo, we can be pretty sure that the issue relevant to this page is antisemitism. I'm not sure why you edits appear to try downplay that, absolve various political groups of participation in that, or generally shift the focus to some other (political) issue.[3][4] Please recall that the topic of this article, and what is relevant to it, is "antisemitism", not left-wing politics, or various other political issues. Jayjg (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jayjg, When the article says 'antisemitic riots', that might lead people to think that the rioters were motivated by hatred of Jews as Jews. That isn't the case here. They were motivated by the Israeli assaults on the Palestinians. They attacked Jews who were on the streets as pro-Israeli demonstrators. They said Jews primarily because the Israeli authorities and the counterdemonstrators are Jews. So, I can see that there were antisemitic expressions, based on the language used, and even isolated attacks on Jews, but that does not mean that 'antisemitic riots' is an accurate description. Moreover, the article impies that Blitz was antisemitic, when I expect they were just happy to attack the police and property. Just because antisemitism is the subject of the article does not mean that events should be defined as antisemitic when they are not. Jontel (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jontel: First, I think we need to distinguish between the demonstrations, which are not discussed in this article, and the riots, which are. Regardless of what the demonstrations were about, the riots were antisemitic. Secondly, we can't really speculate, either as to the motivations of the rioters, or as to why they said "Jews"; and we certainly can't use our speculations about the motivations of the rioters to modify what reliable sources have said about their actions. Third, the article doesn't imply that Blitz (movement) is antisemitic, but does state (accurately) that they were involved in supporting these antisemitic riots. Finally, events that involve chants of "kill the Jews", or hunting down suspected Jews to beat them up, are, in fact, antisemitic; it's not a matter of being "defined as antisemitic when they are not". Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Split[edit]

I propose that we split up this article into two.

  • We keep the current article for modern anti-semitism.
  • And we split off a new article for "Historical antisemitism in Europe".

Also, I strongly support the idea proposed two years ago above. We don't need large amounts of text in here for France and Germany when they have separate pages. It should be merged and cut down to just a short summary.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob drobbsI support the split per WP:SIZE I think you should be WP:BOLD and just do it. Shrike (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So. blogs are acceptable sources here?[edit]

An editor has added the same stuff twice, in less than 24 hours:

including to a blog. Is this acceptable? Huldra (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text you deleted references the Jerusalem Post, Israel Hayom, Algemeiner, the Jewish Chronicle, and an opinion piece in the Times of Israel. What's cited from the opinion piece is solely the stated opinion of the director of International Relations at a notable group, the Simon Wiesenthal Center. So, it's disingenuous at best to delete all of the info from reliable sources claiming it's "including to a blog" -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, besides adding stuff sourced to a blog (https://blogs.timesofisrael.com), you re-add it (within 24 hrs), after it was removed, without starting a discussion here.
In addition, you add link to an article you have started, which notability is presently being discussed; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Collier (political activist). Is that not so? Huldra (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ony thing sourced to a "blog" was this:
Shimon Samuels, the Director for International Relations of the Simon Wiesenthal Center described the impact of this report as "shattering".
And yet you chose to remove everything? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This section was and is WP:UNDUE, IMO, when it was removed the WP:ONUS was on you to make the case (on the talk-page) that it was relevant.
You didn't, Huldra (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It meets due, by the fact it's mentioned in a bunch of sources. And this is a page about antisemitism. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is your WP:POV, Huldra (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what DUE means. nableezy - 23:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A report about antisemitism in Ireland, by an independent journalist, covered by a bunch of RS is absolutely WP:DUE for a couple of sentences in an article about antisemitism in Europe -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I say it is not. What we are trying to tell you, is that no-one decides on their own what is WP:DUE. It might be your belief, but when that is challenged, you bring it to talk. Is that so difficult to understand? Huldra (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Btw; I said in my first revert "non-notable and blogs. Take it to WP:RS/N if you disagree"; I even linked WP:RS/N for you. But you just reverted; no other action, Huldra (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you claiming are unreliable? And what info is being taken from those sources? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Collier is an "investigative journalist" is silly, as is the drive to insert his blog posts and "reports" in every place one can find. An unimportant non-expert wrote something somewhere. A newspaper covered it. Fails WP:WEIGHT. nableezy - 23:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can claim this description is "silly" and put "reports" in quotes as an attempt to trivialize them. But I'll just quote from a RS:
"A report by investigative journalist David Collier..."[5] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many more sources without quite the political bent that the Jerusalem Post has describe him as a "blogger", eg BBC, or The Times, or Haaretz. Yes, calling him an investigative journalist is silly and degrades the term. nableezy - 23:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A serious question, Bob drobbs; did Collier pass his 11+? Huldra (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, User:Bob drobbs; if you do not gain consensus on the talk-page for your inclusion of the Collier-stuff (pr WP:ONUS and WP:DUE and WP:RS); expect to see it removed, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this fails WEIGHT. The topic of antisemitism is extensively covered by actually reliable sources, a blogger who "reviews blog posts" simply does not merit coverage, despite being covered in a handful of news outlets. nableezy - 23:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collier is referred to as an "independent journalist" and "researcher" by many RS. The subject of antisemitism is covered by reliable sources. The text you wiped away, was not referencing Collier's blog or research, it came from: Jerusalem Post, Israel Hayom, Algemeiner, and Jerusalem Chronicle.
Let's be clear -- You're wiping away the work of an independent journalist whose report on Ireland was covered by a bunch of sources. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I wiped away a crap source covered in a handful of newspapers, and oh by the way Algeminer has been a fairly crappy source for several years now. Regardless, being covered in a handful of newspapers does not make a blogger worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia. Collier's "work" has 0 citations to it in any scholarly text anywhere. He simply is not treated as a credible source of information, and as such we should not be including his views. This topic is covered in actual scholarship. We dont need crap like some blogger analyzed social media postings. nableezy - 00:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you try to remove every mention of him off this site, do you have any conflicts of interest of potential conflicts of interest regarding David Collier? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very much no, I had never heard of him or his blog until it was brought up by a sock of a globally banned user. Do you? nableezy - 01:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely don't. I learned about him by reading about his report on PSC. But are you aware that he wrote about you? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has veered widely far from the purpose of a talk page. Regardless, having a fan on the internet might make me blush, but it does not make it so I have a conflict of interest. Any further personal questions are better left somewhere besides here, as this talk page is meant to discuss the article and none of this has anything to do with antisemitism in Europe. nableezy - 03:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have intractable issues that prevent coming to any consensus, and I question some of your behavior. I'd like to take that to a dispute resolution process, but it requires that both people to agree to sign up for the process. As I asked elsewhere, if I go through the effort of initiating such a process, are you willing to participate? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said elsewhere, if youd like to take something to the NPOV noticeboard or start an RFC you do not need anybody else's permission. If you are asking if I want to participate in DRN with you, nah, dont feel like that is something worthwhile. Kindly take your concerns about some of [my] behavior to somewhere besides an article talk page. Thanks. nableezy - 04:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Report on Irish Antisemitism[edit]

Does David Collier's report on antisemitism in Ireland meet WP:DUE for inclusion at Antisemitism in Europe#Ireland? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2021, investigative journalist David Collier reviewed hundreds of posts on social media from "leading anti-Israel activists" in Ireland and released a report that concluded antisemitism in Ireland is much more driven from the top down than in the US or UK.[1] The report explicitly called out a number of Irish politicians who had repeated anti-Semitic libels and called for the destruction of Israel.[2][3] Alan Shatter, who has served as Ireland's Minister of Justice and Equality and also as the Minister of Defence, praised the report an "important piece of research.[4] Shimon Samuels, the Director for International Relations of the Simon Wiesenthal Center described the impact of this report as "shattering".[5]

This question is not regarding this exact text, simply if information regarding the report should be included or completely excluded. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Comprehensive report exposes antisemitism in Ireland". The Jerusalem Post. 10 October 2021. Retrieved 4 December 2021.
  2. ^ "Report exposes pervasive 'top-down' antisemitism in Ireland". Israel Hayom.
  3. ^ "New Independent Report Demonstrates 'Horrific' Levels of Antisemitism Present in Ireland, Dublin Pro-Israel Activist Says". algemeiner.com.
  4. ^ "Pro-Palestine Israeli academic pays damages after libelling Irish ex-minister Alan Shatter". The Jewish Chronicle.
  5. ^ Samuels, Shimon (10 October 2021). "Comments on David Collier's Outstanding Report on Antisemitism in Ireland". The Blogs. www.timesofisrael.com. Retrieved 5 December 2021.
  • Exclude - it is indeed a verifiable fact that a blogger (as described by BBC, Haaretz etc) wrote a report in which he claims he reviewed social media posts from supposed "anti-Israel activists". That report was indeed covered in a handful of newspapers and blog posts, as demonstrated above. However, it had zero impact on anything. This article covers literally millennia of material. It covers blood libels from the middle ages, to the Holocaust, to systemic hate and bias today. Devoting a paragraph, or even a sentence, to a blogger who looked at what he claims are the social media postings "anti-Israeli activists" merits zero weight in proportion to the rest of the article. This fetishization of the most breathless recounting of what is uncorroborated innuendo by a blogger in an encyclopedia fails WP:WEIGHT, and there is zero reason a non-expert blogger should be quoted on this page. nableezy - 15:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inculde There is more then enough sources to gain WP:WEIGHT if the the problem iS WP:SIZE then we may split the article per time period to solve the problem. --Shrike (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did anything happen or result from this "shattering" report? Did the Irish gov respond? What happened to the called out politicians? If the answer is no, no, nothing..and the sources commenting on this report are merely comments about the author and the allegations contained in it, then why should an unpublished report from a non notable person be WP:DUE? Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it was published by major international WP:RS Shrike (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The report is not published. There are reports about Collier, the report and allegations that Collier made. If the gov did not take it seriously and nothing happened, then why is this not just a fringe minority view + some source churnalism? Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you seriously saying that Haaretz and BBC are guilty of churnalism? Shrike (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you seriously looked at the list of sources? No BBC, no Haaretz, just the usual crowd, Hayom, Algemeiner etc. You looked at Nableezy comment and just assumed that they were sources, wrong. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are news outlets, this is an encyclopedia article. Not everything in the news should be in an encyclopedia article. Especially when the source is some non-expert blogger. nableezy - 17:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of impact do you expect? Racism of all sorts is a bit of an intractable problem. Are you implying that all reports describing and analyzing anti-black racism, Islamophobia, and antisemitism, should be _excluded_ from wikipedia unless someone takes definitive action based on them?? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Any kind of impact at all (ie rs reported on that, not on the allegations, which can be made by any Tom, Dick or Harry and frequently are) Reports written by qualified people in the field with a reputation to maintain and cited authoritatively by others, we've discussed this to death already, those kinds of reports have encyclopedia value.Selfstudier (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the very first reference, the Jerusalem Post cites him authoritatively:
    "Some of the most egregious social media posts were tweets, including one that read "stop calling yourself (((irish))) you subversive piece of ****. You're a jew and everyone sees what you're doing.""
    When Tom, Dick, or Harry write a report it's not covered by multiple, independent, secondary sources. But Collier's report was. This bigotry is documented and it's covered significantly by RS. It's absolutely due and belongs in this article. -- Bob drobbs (talk)
  • Your authoritative cite is a tweet? I agree that, according to these sources, the "comprehensive", "deeply disturbing", "shattering", "outstanding" report had zero impact. Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude -Have any of you actually read the "report"? The "style" is possible worse than his blog (p.21: "Electronic Intifada, a rabidly antisemitic online source"), the references are mostly to Facebook, tweets, --and Wikipedia-articles(!)-
Huldra's comments on aspects of the Collier report
And yes, he has found some tweets etc which are truely horrible (one is "kill all jews...kill all jews); most are reproduced in the first few pages. (Alas, I could easily find far worse statements, uttered by Israelis about Palestinians/Arabs)
But he also resorts to falsification; on p. 33, Bríd Smith is quoted:
It is specifically for her comments during the May 2021 Dail debate that she has been included here. This is how she described Israelis:
“Marauding gangs that are armed to the teeth, with American, Russian, French and Canadian accents”. She went on to say this is ‘literally what is going on’.87"
But when you read note 87, the source, she actually said:
"I also have a friend who lives in one of the towns that was under attack for ethnic cleansing by the Zionist militia when the latest phase of ethnic cleansing broke out. I telephoned him to see how he and his Palestinian wife and children were. He said: "It is unbelievable, Bríd. If you could imagine, in your homes in Ballyfermot, marauding gangs that are armed to the teeth, with American, Russian, French and Canadian accents, coming down your street, protected by the police who will allow them to do anything, and running into your homes, throwing your family out and claiming your homes and gardens, that is literally what is going on." That is what ethnic cleansing means."
Ie: she quotes a local Palestinian, but Collier falsifies this, and makes it her words.
Collier does a lot of WP:CHERRYPICKING, but how representative is it? According to the one global survey I have found, by Anti-Defamation League (ok, so I have lot to say against the way they define anti-semitism, -but that is for another time/day; I think the "between" countries should hold.) Here we have some for 2014 (the last):
Denmark 9%, UK 8%, Ireland 20%, France 37%, Begium 27%, Greece 69%
IOW: Ireland does worse than, say Denmark and UK; but far, far better than eg France, not to mention Greece. Ireland is actually "middle of the tree" of European countries in the ADL survey.
So why has Collier focused on Ireland? I think the answer to that is given on p 13:
"Of all the western democracies Ireland currently has the reputation of being the most politically hostile towards Israel."
I recall Shulamit Aloni's words: charges of antisemitism are "a trick we use" to suppress criticism of Israel coming from within the United States, while for criticism coming from Europe "we bring up the Holocaust." Apparently the Irish counts as Americans! Huldra (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: What do your thoughts based upon reading this report have to do with WP:DUE? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob drobbs: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." What Collier reports as the only view, is actually a minority view (according to ADL), Huldra (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: You didn't answer my question -- What do your thoughts based upon reading this report have to do with WP:DUE? If the answer is "nothing", you should voluntarily revert or hide all of that text. -- 22:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
She just directly answered your question with a quote from WP:DUE, quite right, too.Selfstudier (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely include It is 100% on topic for this page and without question meets WP:DUE based on the stack of sources supporting it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - The report was covered in a number of mainstream reliable source, as cited in the above paragraph. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC) strike sock[reply]
  • Comment There's a bug with the bot and this discussion is not currently showing up correctly in the list. As of this point, we've just heard from the usual characters and there's no surprise to any other their opinions. Hopefully this problem will be fixed soon and we'll hear from others. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inculde There are enough WP:RS for such move and such number of reliable sources about this issue shows that it has WP:WEIGHT as well. Allso, for all involved editors, please respect 3 RR and 1 RR and self revert.Tritomex (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS too while you're at it. nableezy - 03:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT cant be the reason for the exclusion.Tritomex (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dont believe anybody ever said that it was. nableezy - 14:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude per my comments above, unpublished report by non notable blogger with zero impact, the Irish government ignored it as did any significant mainstream sources (just the usual pro Israel crowd including Israel Hayom, Algemeiner, JC, and a blog, I mean really.)Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the Irish government ignored it or not,(it responded to Israeli report to UN on Irish antisemitism [6], the Israeli government published it on its Dublin embassy website [7], while prominent sources like The Times accused the Irish government for complicity of enabling Antisemitism in Ireland. [8]. So for the question of WP:WEIGHT it is irrelevant if the Irish government ignored or not criticism against itself, as Jewish groups, who are the victims of this actions did not ignore it. Also, to label Algemeiner Journal which is a respectable journal representing large portion of European and American Jewish views as "just usual pro-Israel crowd" is unacceptable. It is a reliable secondary source, no matter if it is Jewish owned or not. The amount, quality and range of reliable secondary sources about issue clearly shows that this topic has to be reflected in this article.Tritomex (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No impact at the time and none now, either. Why do you think that might be? Nor is it an accident that those are all the sources there are; denying that Algemeiner is pro Israel seems a bit odd, look at https://www.algemeiner.com/ for today, its like that every day. But the sources are just a symptom, the real problem here is the initial report and it's author.Selfstudier (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your Times link is a letter to the editor. Nobody said anything about Algemeiner being Jewish owned as a basis for calling it a crap source. nableezy - 18:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. The problem is not limited to Collier. Sociometric analysis of 'public opinion' via social media is methodologically very tricky issue, so much so that there are many emerging studies which highlight the difficulties in making broad generalizations from specific Twitter/Facebook/Instagram etc., corpuses.(Klaˇsnja et al, Measuring Public Opinion with Social Media Data, 2016 etc.) To do it, one needs a thoroughly grounding in statistical analysis and sociological methodology. There is no evidence, (and much to the contrary) that Collier has such qualifications: he trawls, highlights bawls and then scrawls, all for his blog. Margins of a sympathetic press exclaim 'wow', some politicians idem, but it ain't cited anywhere in serious studies. The result is also that we are given an impression of something like a 1930s anti-Semitic atmosphere wherever you look. His (lack of) method produces the panic profile he pushes. Manfred Gerstenfeld, essentially an organic chemist who turned himself into 'the world's foremost authority on antisemitism', according to his partisan boosters, managed after a single brief visit to Norway, where 700 well-integrated Jews live with another 5,400,000 fellow Norwegians, to raise a raucous hue and cry that the place was teeming with anti-Semitism. It turned out that even in the small Jewish community, many thought him hysterical, but he got traction for confusing Norway's traditional sensitivity to human rights issues, here applied to Israel's occupation, with anti-Semitism. No method, just politics, and image manipulation. The basic reason for exclusion lies in the fact that we have numerous sociologically informed monitors and monographs, also from within the concerned Jewish communities, that analyse these phenomena competently, producing material of encyclopedic value. Bloggers are just a noise factor.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. Low-quality report from non-notable blogger with no relevant expertise and no indication of WP:SUSTAINED coverage necessary for inclusion in an overarching article like this one; secondary coverage is minimal given the WP:EXCEPTIONAL nature of the claims and largely from WP:BIASED or low-quality sources, which affects WP:DUE because relying on such sources can give marginal things (like this) undue weight. Exceptional claims lime Collins is making here require high-quality sourcing, not just a handful of sources noting what he said. If this is, in fact, a vital and incisive study, then followup studies form higher-quality researchers with more established methodologies should appear eventually referencing it, at which point we can cite those. But "blogger makes shocking claims, and gets a news cycle in a narrow slice of partisan press" is not something we ought to be covering. --Aquillion (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Were it not for reliable sources writing about it, I would be a strong exclude, as much of social media is a cesspool, and this doesn't seem to be an empirical research paper. Reputable surveys/analyses sure, but not social media posts. However, if there is evidence that it has earned sufficient attention from reliable sources and/or well-known organizations, then that would be a reason for inclusion. For example, the fact that it was written up in the Irish Times, lends weight to it being included, but at the same time, the idea of highlighting a report that is just a collection of social media posts seems unencyclopedic. Drsmoo (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and include. Multiple reliable sources have written about it. It has not been demonstrated that this is an exceptional claim. Likewise, if it's just one or two sentences, there are no DUE issues. Alaexis¿question? 13:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude for reasons outlined already, according to the BBC, "Mr Collier is a British businessman who lived in Israel for nearly 20 years and whose blog is dedicated to "researching anti-Semitism inside anti-Zionist activity"" Thus also a blogger. Not an "investigative journalist", or any kind of journalist, so zero weight should be attributed to someone without ANY KIND of credentials, journalistic, academic or whatever. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage, mere mentions, in a small number of sources add nothing to his credibility. All that before considering Nishidani's point that this kind of analysis needs more than merely finding and quoting that there ARE SOME people in Ireland who post offensive social media comments, but extrapolating anything from that is very dodgy indeed, especially continent-wide extrapolations. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbpia[edit]

Shrike has added Arbpia partial to the page so I have added the corresponding edit notice. If reverting more than once in 24hr, take care that there is no breach.Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unification needed[edit]

Subsections about specific countries should be written according to some model. Either all of them should include history or describe only current situation. All subsections should include text, not only links.Xx236 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary[edit]

Xx236 (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Austria[edit]

Antisemitism in contemporary Austria but no page about the former period. Short description of the period is unsourced.Xx236 (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia[edit]

No word. Xx236 (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

France[edit]

Nothing about history.Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germany[edit]

Bulgaria[edit]

Bulgaria did not protect foreign Jews, 11,343 victims.Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silence since March, 23[edit]

John of Capistrano caused antisemitic actions in several countries, including Germany.https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4004-capistrano-john-of Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://itstartedwithwords.org/resources/antisemitism/timeline-of-antisemitism/ Xx236 (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts of this article are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict?[edit]

@Selfstudier: This article shows a warning to new editors, who are forbidden to edit parts of this article that are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Which parts of this article are they not allowed to edit? Jarble (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use judgement, Arbpia is "broadly construed". Anything related to AI or IP conflict. Anything before 1945 in the article is unlikely, then in 1945 it mentions Palestine, red flag. Etc. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism_in_Europe&oldid=1217256252"